The document summarizes the key differences between alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and online dispute resolution (ODR), the driving forces behind ODR, and core regulatory principles of ODR. It discusses ADR vs ODR, how ODR brought disputes online, and regulatory bodies that set standards for ODR like the National Center for Technology and Dispute Resolution. The document also outlines principles like accessibility, fairness, informed participation and transparency that ODR systems are designed around.

1. Differences between
ADR and ODR, driving
forces behind ODR and
core regulatory
principles.
Submitted by:
Pragati
Roll no: 13
Semester : 2
Subject: e- commerce, e-
governance and online dispute
resolution
Teacher coordinator : Dr. adv. Keval
Ukey
M.sc. part 1

2.  Introduction
 Difference betweenADR and ODR
 Driving force behind ODR
 Core regulatory principles
 References

3.  Online dispute resolution (ODR) is branch of
dispute resolution which uses technology to
facilitate the resolution of disputes between
parties. It primarily involves negotiation,
mediation or arbitration, or combination of all
three. In this respect it is often seen as being
the online equivalent of alternative dispute
resolution (ADR). However, ODR can also
augment these traditional means of resolving
disputes by applying innovative techniques and
online technologies to the process.

4. ADR
 Alternative dispute
resolution.
 An independent third
party mediates a dispute
between a business and
a consumer .
 Dispute resolved by
mediation provider.
 It is a process
ODR
 Online dispute
resolution.
 New EU platform which
went live on 15th Feb,
2016 in which trader
solves the dispute.
 Online submission of the
complaint .
 It is a website.
ODR is online version of ADR.

6. 1. National Centre For Technology And Dispute
Resolution, Standards Of Practice:
 It supports and sustains the development of information
technology applications, institutional resources, and theoretical
and applied knowledge for better understanding and managing
conflict.
 It believes that networked informational technology can be
uniquely leveraged to
expand and improve conflict management resources and
expertise.

7.  Being at the beginning of understanding how individuals
separated by great physical,
cultural or technological distances can utilize resources and
expertise virtually.
 Online environment as a 'place' where powerful tools like.
ADR/ODR will be available for
working to find solutions to many forms of offline/online
conflicts.

8. 2. US federal trade commission (FTC)
 Created in 1914 to prevent unfair methods of competition in
commerce as part of the battle to “bust the trust.”
 FTC is a working to protect consumers by preventing
anticompetitive ,deceptive, and unfair business practices,
enhancing informed consumer choice and public understanding of
the competitive process, and accomplishing this without unduly
burdening legitimate business activity.
 FTC engages with competition and consumer protection agencies
in various countries, directly and through international networks, to
halt deceptive and anticompetitive business practices.

9. The FTC’s office of international affairs directs the agency’s
activities for competition and consumer protection-
• Strengthening relationships
• Developing formal and informal arrangements and agreements
• Engaging in cooperative dialogues and submitting reports at forums
• Helping agencies to enhance and develop competition.
• Sharing information with foreign law.
• Maintaining an international fellow program.
It also supports econsumer.gov (project sponsored by international
consumer protection and enforcement network and consumer
agencies )

10. 3. Canadian Working Group On Electronic
Commerce And Consumers
 Consumer Measures Committee (CMC) was created under spirit of
cooperation and to improve efficiency on consumer front. This committee is
also called as Canadian Working Group On Electronic Commerce And
Consumers.
 CMC has developed Cooperative Enforcement agreement, which
facilitates information exchanges among consumer protection agencies
when they are carrying out investigations.
 Its Consumer awareness committee is responsible for investigating,
developing and promoting information products for consumers. The
committee also provides communications support for the work of the other
working groups of the CMC, such as the Identity Theft Checklist.

11.  CMC has so far completed harmonization
agreements on:
• Direct seller regulation
• Cost of credit disclosure
• Upholstered and stuffed articles measures
• Internet sales contracts
• Prohibited collection practices

12. 4. Australian National Alternative Dispute
Resolution Advisory Council (NADRAC)
 Established in 1995, NADRC was an independent body that
provided policy about alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to the
Attorney-General of Australia. It provided expert policy advice to the
Attorney-General on the development of ADR and promoted the use
of alternative dispute management.
 The body concluded its work following the government decision to
simplify and streamline government business. NADRC made
substantial contributions to the development and promotion of ADR
in Australia, publishing reports and papers on the topic.

13. 5. Global Business And Electronic Commerce
(GBDE)
 The interconnectivity of the society creates need for new
governance. Decision making process was different from how it was
in the past. It needs to focus on new paradigm and make proper
changes.
 It's time that politics and the economy realizes that the new
information network changes everything. Companies like Facebook
and Google have already shown that there needs to some authority
which can take transparent measure for consumer protection.
Nations and business giants needs to come together formulate and
provide implementation of multinational law.

14. 6. Consumers International
 Consumers International, formerly known as the international
organization of consumers union (IOCU), was started in 1960 by a
group of five consumer organizations from the US,
western Europe and Australia.
 Consumer international is the member ship organization for
consumer groups around the world. They believe in a world where
everyone has access to safe and sustainable goods and services. It
brings together over 200 member organizations in more than 100
countries to empower and champion the rights of consumers
everywhere.

15.  In recent decades consumer protection has improved in
many countries. Many consumers still lack basic
protections and as the world has globalised and
digitalized, changes to the global marketplace are
outpacing consumer protection. Too often consumers
are left at a disadvantage with the companies and
governments they encounter, leaving them exposed to
unsafe, unfair or unethical practices.
 Consumers international wants to ensure that the voice
of consumers is as powerful as the governments and
corporations they interact with. Achieving this will ensure
everyone can realize the benefits of our increasingly
globalised and digital world.

16. 7. The European Consumers
Organization (BEUC)
 BEUC was created on 6 March 1962 by consumer organizations
of Belgium, Luxembourg, France, the Netherlands, Italy and
Germany. It acts as the umbrella group in Brussels for its
member organizations and its main task is to represent them at
European level and defend the interests of all Europe’s
consumers.
 BEUC investigates EU decisions and policy developments likely
to affect consumers with a special focus on eight areas:
Financial Services, Food, Digital Rights, Consumer Rights,
Sustainability, Safety, Health and Energy.

17. BEUC is acknowledged as a trustworthy
consumer representative by both decision-
makers and other stakeholders alike.This is
particularly due to the collective skills and
knowledge of its experts as well as the ones of
its member organizations who are in daily
contact with European consumers. BEUC's
prioritized topics are financial services; food;
consumers’ rights & enforcement; digital rights;
and sustainability. Additionally, BEUC work on
energy, safety and health issues.

18. 8. International Chamber Of Commerce (ICC)
 ICC was founded in the aftermath of the first world war when no world
system of rules governed trade, investment, finance or commercial
relations. Without waiting for governments to fill the gap, ICC's founders
acted on their conviction that the private sector is best qualified to set
global standards for business. They called themselves 'The merchants of
piece’.
 With a global network of over 6 million members in more than 100
countries, ICC work to promote international trade, responsible business
conduct and a global approach to regulation through our unique mix of
advocacy and standard settling activities - together with market leading
dispute resolution services. They represent business interests at the
highest levels of Intergovernmental decision-making, whether at the World
Trade Organization, the United States or G20 ensuring the voice of
business is heard.

19.  ICC specialize in world-class business and legal training
and are an industry-leading publisher of practical tools
for international business, banking and arbitration. So,
from the small e-commerce start-up in Istanbul to the
multinational software company in Delhi, businesses
worldwide can benefit from ICC's rules and mechanism
for the conduct of trade.

20. 9. American Bar Association (ABA)
 Founded in 1878, ABA has played formative role in the
development of the profession of law in the United States.
 ABA is one of the world' largest voluntary professional
organizations, with over 400,000 members. It is committed in
improving legal profession, eliminating bias and enhancing diversity,
and advancing rule of law throughput United States and the world.
The Following are some major goals of ABA
 Provide benefits, programs and services which promote members'
professional growth and quality of life.
 Promote competence, ethical conduct and professionalism.

21.  Eliminate bias in the legal profession and the justice
system.
 Increase public understanding of and respect for the rule
of low, the legal process, and the role of the legal
profession.
 Holds government accountable under law.
 Work for just laws including human rights, and for legal
process.
 Promotes the highest quality legal education.
 Promotes public services by legal profession.
 Hold government accountable under law.
 Assure meaningful access to justice to all persons.
 Preserve the independence of the legal profession and
the judiciary.

22. Accessibility
 ODR systems and processes effectively facilitate and do not
limit the right to representation for parties in processes of dispute
resolution.
Accountability
 The development n implementation of ODR systems, processes
and practices are accountable to the institutions, legal
framework and communities that they serve.
Competence
 ODR systems, processes and practitioners will be competent in
or provide access to relevant technological or human
competency required for the effective implementation of the
dispute resolution process that they undertake to assist with.

23. Confidentiality
 The development and implementation of ODR systems ,
processes and practitioners maintain confidentiality in
accordance with all legal obligations, informed participation,
security and transparency.
Equality
 ODR processes are designed and implemented in ways that
treat all participants with respect and human dignity; that system
design and processes enable silenced or marginalized voices to
be heard and actively seek to ensure that privileges and
disadvantages are not replicated in the experience of
participation ; that no participant is placed at a higher risk than
others; and therefore, that ODR processes are designed to
respond effectively to the reality that some contexts may put
some at more risk than others.

24. Fairness
 ODR processes re designed and implemented to facilitate and uphold due
process, without bias or benefits for or against individuals or groups,
including those based on algorithms. They are responsive to and reflective
of the communities they serve.
Honesty
 ODR processes are designed and implemented with the intention that
data is gathered, managed and presented in ways to ensure it is not
misrepresented or presented out of context.
Impartiality
 ODR processes are designed and implemented, and practitioners function
with commitment to reducing bias in the delivery of the process. This
includes accounting for technological and other conditions that could
structure patterns of privilege in process and outcome for repeat players
with particular attention to the principles of accessibility, fairness and
transparency.

25. Innovation:
 online dispute resolution continues to innovate to improve
the delivery of dispute resolution services and benefits more
fairly, effectively and efficiently in ways that increase peace,
trust and access to justice.
Integration:
 ODR processes are effectively integrated both internally
within a system and externally with other systems, networks
and entities. Technology serves the dispute resolution
process as seamlessly as possible.

26. Informed Participation
In the development and implementation of ODR systems and
processes active effort is made to ensure:
 Innovation explicit disclosure to participants of all information about
risks and benefits of the process,
 The competency of participants to evaluate the information about
participation in the process,
 Understanding by participants of the information,
 Whenever possible, the voluntary acceptance by the participants of
the risks of participating; and whenever voluntary consent is not
possible due to the mandatory nature of participation than that is
made transparent.

27. Empowerment
 ODR systems and processes are designed and
implemented in ways that seek to enable growth
and positive change for individuals, relationships,
systems and society, thereby increasing access to
justice and enhancement of choices and effective
decision making opportunities.
Affordability:
 Online Dispute Resolution Systems may be an
alternative to court or person-to-person based
dispute resolution, creating cost savings by their
very nature.

28. Legal Obligation
 The design and implementation of ODR systems and processes
uphold the laws of relevant jurisdictions and ensure that relevant
laws are known and followed in the context of the principles of
Accessibility, Informed Participation, and Transparency.
Neutrality
 ODR systems and practitioners function with independence from
the disputing parties, and any conflicts of interest are made
transparent.
Protection from Harm
 ODR design and implementation seek to prevent and minimize
harm and risk for those involved in dispute resolution processes,
with particular attention to those most marginalized and with least
access to justice.

29. Security
 All reasonable efforts are made to ensure that the data and
communication between the parties and other entities linked to
ODR processes are secure to the fullest extent of the law, making
transparent any known limitations.
Transparency
 All reasonable efforts are taken to make transparent the true
purposes, risks and legal obligations inclusive of but not limited to:
the form and legal jurisdiction of dispute resolution processed; the
identities, affiliations, obligations and conflicts of interests of the
parties, entities and systems; and the data security, confidentiality
and privacy policies and systems involved.

30. Third parties
 Dispute resolution professionals shall have sufficient skills and
training to fulfill their function, but they will not need to be licensed
legal practitioners. However, ODR, when appropriate, must take
measures to ensure legal experts are available for consultation
when specialized knowledge on the interpretation and application of
laws and regulations is required in the process of providing ODR
services.
General:
 Online Dispute Resolution schemes must promote respectful online
communication. Online Dispute Resolution schemes should
encourage parties, whenever appropriate, to resolve their disputes
using consensual processes, particularly when the restoration of the
social links amongst disputants is of paramount importance, such
as in family disputes.

31.  Developed under the auspices ofThe NationalCenter forTechnology and
Dispute Resolution; LeahWing, lead author, 2016.
 Online Dispute Resolution is framed here as inclusive of any process or
intervention used to handle disputes that employ electronic
communications and other information and communication
technologies.
 Wing, L. “Ethical Principles for Online Dispute Resolution:A GPS Device
for the Field.” International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution,Vol. 3,
No. 1, 2016, 12-29.
 http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-12-994_en.htm
 https://iccwbo.org/about-us/who-we-are/history/